The latest SpaceX mission to the International Space Station officially ended at 9:34am PST as the capsule landed in the Pacific Ocean. Dragon was tasked with its second resupply trip to the ISS, bringing about 1,200 pounds of equipment with it when it launched on March 1. There were a few hiccups along the way—notably trouble initializing thrusters when trying to move out of its original orbit and toward the ISS—but Dragon did ultimately return with about 2,670 pounds of recovered cargo. (As NPR notes, it's a combination of supplies, equipment, scientific instruments, and "a set of LEGO toys that have been on the station for the last two years.")

Dragon will first travel to Los Angeles and then to Texas for unloading, according to the Associated Press. This trip was the second of 12 ISS missions SpaceX has agreed to with NASA. SpaceX made photos of Dragon's journey available, and NASA has a more detailed recap of what items the capsule delivered on the mission (the organization also made sure to note the landing serendipitously occured on Leonard Nimoy's birthday).

Ars Science Video >

A celebration of Cassini

A celebration of Cassini

A celebration of Cassini

Nearly 20 years ago, the Cassini-Huygens mission was launched and the spacecraft has spent the last 13 years orbiting Saturn. Cassini burned up in Saturn's atmosphere, and left an amazing legacy.

I'm so excited to see private companies taking on the load of moving stuff into space. Could a privately-funded space station, or heaven forbid, moon shot, be far behind?! More people heading into space excites the crap out of me, and I truly believe we're living in an age of wonders.

The only drawback I see to the success of these endeavors is that it's basically proof for the government to continue to slash spending for space exploration/mission resources. After all, now that there is a validated and (mostly) proven private-party willing to do the work, even if a lot of it was predicated on government dollars initially, then why should the government keep paying for NASA?

But on the flip side, I hope this does spur more private entities to also pursue space exploration as well. As much as it likely means the privatization of beneficial inventions and improvements to the necessary technologies to get there, I'd still like to see a new space race happen.

The only drawback I see to the success of these endeavors is that it's basically proof for the government to continue to slash spending for space exploration/mission resources. After all, now that there is a validated and (mostly) proven private-party willing to do the work, even if a lot of it was predicated on government dollars initially, then why should the government keep paying for NASA?

But on the flip side, I hope this does spur more private entities to also pursue space exploration as well. As much as it likely means the privatization of beneficial inventions and improvements to the necessary technologies to get there, I'd still like to see a new space race happen.

Most of the technology that's being used here has been made possible only through years and years of government-backed research. Things today are only becoming so "cheap" because of the progress that's already been made.

One side benefit of private contracts could be the "locking in" of targets through contracts that aren't voidable whenever Congress or the President (every 2/4 years, respectively) changes their mind. I am with you in that a complete takeover of the realm by private industries all operating to accomplish the same thing might not end up doing what we want, but unfortunately the government hasn't really had their act together since we finished going to the Moon, and now that we can't even send a man up on a launch vehicle adorned with Old Glory.

Does anyone know if the weight they carry up is going to be ramped up? They're carrying a lot more down (weight-wise) than they do on the way up.

Well, it *can* carry up about 6 times what it did up, and about twice what it did down, so I imagine so. They probably didn't want to max out it's payload yet, since there are still some kinks to work out, obviously.

The only drawback I see to the success of these endeavors is that it's basically proof for the government to continue to slash spending for space exploration/mission resources. After all, now that there is a validated and (mostly) proven private-party willing to do the work, even if a lot of it was predicated on government dollars initially, then why should the government keep paying for NASA?

But on the flip side, I hope this does spur more private entities to also pursue space exploration as well. As much as it likely means the privatization of beneficial inventions and improvements to the necessary technologies to get there, I'd still like to see a new space race happen.

The government is still paying for these missions, it doesn't get them off the hook for the bill. And so far, private industry is not doing outer system probes, Mars landers, etc.

But NASA's job should be to keep chasing the cutting edge. If an increasing amount of the field becomes so conventional that there are other people doing it, it makes sense that NASA should turn towards more difficult tasks.

The only drawback I see to the success of these endeavors is that it's basically proof for the government to continue to slash spending for space exploration/mission resources. After all, now that there is a validated and (mostly) proven private-party willing to do the work, even if a lot of it was predicated on government dollars initially, then why should the government keep paying for NASA?

But on the flip side, I hope this does spur more private entities to also pursue space exploration as well. As much as it likely means the privatization of beneficial inventions and improvements to the necessary technologies to get there, I'd still like to see a new space race happen.

The government is still paying for these missions, it doesn't get them off the hook for the bill. And so far, private industry is not doing outer system probes, Mars landers, etc.

But NASA's job should be to keep chasing the cutting edge. If an increasing amount of the field becomes so conventional that there are other people doing it, it makes sense that NASA should turn towards more difficult tasks.

They're not doing them -yet-. But they may in the future, hunting for resources, rare metals, mining, that sort of thing. The future of human technology almost always screams space to me. It could just be I grew up reading too much Hugo Gernsback. XD

The only drawback I see to the success of these endeavors is that it's basically proof for the government to continue to slash spending for space exploration/mission resources. After all, now that there is a validated and (mostly) proven private-party willing to do the work, even if a lot of it was predicated on government dollars initially, then why should the government keep paying for NASA?

But on the flip side, I hope this does spur more private entities to also pursue space exploration as well. As much as it likely means the privatization of beneficial inventions and improvements to the necessary technologies to get there, I'd still like to see a new space race happen.

The government is still paying for these missions, it doesn't get them off the hook for the bill. And so far, private industry is not doing outer system probes, Mars landers, etc.

But NASA's job should be to keep chasing the cutting edge. If an increasing amount of the field becomes so conventional that there are other people doing it, it makes sense that NASA should turn towards more difficult tasks.

There are rough parallels in modern aviation. The government (the DOD, mostly) pays for R&D in advanced sensors, engines, airframes, etc for very specialized tasks (again, mostly military).

The only drawback I see to the success of these endeavors is that it's basically proof for the government to continue to slash spending for space exploration/mission resources. After all, now that there is a validated and (mostly) proven private-party willing to do the work, even if a lot of it was predicated on government dollars initially, then why should the government keep paying for NASA?

But on the flip side, I hope this does spur more private entities to also pursue space exploration as well. As much as it likely means the privatization of beneficial inventions and improvements to the necessary technologies to get there, I'd still like to see a new space race happen.

I still believe NASA will still lead in terms of space exploration. I see private companies, like SpaceX, more as a transport business.

The only drawback I see to the success of these endeavors is that it's basically proof for the government to continue to slash spending for space exploration/mission resources. After all, now that there is a validated and (mostly) proven private-party willing to do the work, even if a lot of it was predicated on government dollars initially, then why should the government keep paying for NASA?

But on the flip side, I hope this does spur more private entities to also pursue space exploration as well. As much as it likely means the privatization of beneficial inventions and improvements to the necessary technologies to get there, I'd still like to see a new space race happen.

Less money spent on NASA doing launches means that NASA can spend more money on science and exploration. That is, of course, assuming it's a zero sum game and that their funding level doesn't decrease. Keep in mind that scientific research of all types in the US is heavily funded by the government.

The media coverage around SpaceX is pretty fascinating. There are dozens of other rocket motor companies out there delivering commerical and government payloads frequently at low cost commercial prices. SpaceX shows up, buys up a lot of old rocket engineers from these companies, builds their own motors, and suddenly they're the only thing in space.

The media coverage around SpaceX is pretty fascinating. There are dozens of other rocket motor companies out there delivering commerical and government payloads frequently at low cost commercial prices. SpaceX shows up, buys up a lot of old rocket engineers from these companies, builds their own motors, and suddenly they're the only thing in space.

Can someone explain why they get so much coverage?

This is just a guess, but I'm going to hazard that it has to do with them winning the X Prize. I'd LOVE to see more companies doing it, though. More companies putting money in space means more research is needed, and more research means more science!

The media coverage around SpaceX is pretty fascinating. There are dozens of other rocket motor companies out there delivering commerical and government payloads frequently at low cost commercial prices. SpaceX shows up, buys up a lot of old rocket engineers from these companies, builds their own motors, and suddenly they're the only thing in space.

Can someone explain why they get so much coverage?

Mostly because (a) they are pure private, with no state ownership interests, and (b) their prices are even lower than their competitors by a wide margin.

This is just a guess, but I'm going to hazard that it has to do with them winning the X Prize. I'd LOVE to see more companies doing it, though. More companies putting money in space means more research is needed, and more research means more science!

The Anasari X Prize was won by Scaled Composites (Burt Rutan), not SpaceX.

Why so much attention? Good PR for one. But in large part, SpaceX has been really shaking up the launch market. Actively seeking to push prices down and bring on new capabilities (like Dragon).

The media coverage around SpaceX is pretty fascinating. There are dozens of other rocket motor companies out there delivering commerical and government payloads frequently at low cost commercial prices. SpaceX shows up, buys up a lot of old rocket engineers from these companies, builds their own motors, and suddenly they're the only thing in space.

Can someone explain why they get so much coverage?

This is just a guess, but I'm going to hazard that it has to do with them winning the X Prize. I'd LOVE to see more companies doing it, though. More companies putting money in space means more research is needed, and more research means more science!

Strange. I don't recall SpaceX winning the X Prize. Yes, they were one of the contenders, but they don't want to just stop at 65 miles towards space.

It's only a matter of time before SpaceX sends its own astronauts on a shakedown orbital trip. Another first.

Also it would not surprise me if a few years after that, SpaceX made an unannounced detour on one mission and repeated the Apollo 8 trip around the moon. I can think of no better way to promote the company. Do they have an upper stage capable of a TLI?

Does anyone know if the weight they carry up is going to be ramped up? They're carrying a lot more down (weight-wise) than they do on the way up.

Yes, they need to ramp upmass to meet demand.

As it turned out, this mass likely maxes out the current v1.0 version of Falcon9 within safety margins. The new v1.1 which will be tested (outside of NASA deliveries) this summer has the recently fully tested MerlinD engine (announced ready 20th of Mars), with a much increased thrust-to-weight ratio*, on both stages and the stages stretched to match. It should do what the v1.0 was supposed to do at a reasonably higher cost (i.e. still cheap), at a guess the more producible MerlinD is cheaper to make than MerlinC.

Also, NASA has ramped up the downmass from non-critical deliveries (luckily, since the CRS1 leaked after splashdown) to critical deliveries (and it is claimed the CRS2 was dry inside - lessons learned). The backlog on those should be largish.

The CRS2 up- vs downmass was likely meeting NASA demand for the time being, but expect to see the usual more up than down profile as the commercial cargo program stabilizes.

*Claimed by SpaceX to be the highest ever for a liquid engine at > 150 T/W. Dunno about that, but it's high.

It's only a matter of time before SpaceX sends its own astronauts on a shakedown orbital trip. Another first.

Also it would not surprise me if a few years after that, SpaceX made an unannounced detour on one mission and repeated the Apollo 8 trip around the moon. I can think of no better way to promote the company. Do they have an upper stage capable of a TLI?

Oh it won't be a "surprise." Most of the Saturn V was fuel to get to Lunar orbit and back. The difference between LEO and Geosynchronous is three orders of magnitude (if I'm remembering the distances right, 200-300 miles for LEO, 25,000+ for Geosynchronous.) The moon is another order of magnitude more (100,000+ miles.) That's just going to the room down the hall compared to what a Martian or Venusian mission would be.

Does anyone know if the weight they carry up is going to be ramped up? They're carrying a lot more down (weight-wise) than they do on the way up.

Well, it *can* carry up about 6 times what it did up, and about twice what it did down, so I imagine so. They probably didn't want to max out it's payload yet, since there are still some kinks to work out, obviously.

Note also that right now we have lots of ways to get mass up to the station: Dragon, Japan's HTV, Europe's ATV, Russia's Progress, and coming up next month the first launch of Orbital's Cygnus capsule (if you're anywhere on the US east coast, be ready for a good show; Antares + Cygnus will be the largest launch ever from Virginia, and will be visible from much of the mid Atlantic).

The only one of those that has any down-mass capability whatsoever is the Dragon. Right now, Dragn is the human race's only method of getting cargo larger than a small backpack down from the station. Frankly, if we had to it would be worth launching empty just for that capability alone. The fact that we actually get to send some hardware up too is just icing on the cake. :-)

Realm of Hope and Glory, Cosmos of things that be, How shall we extol thee, who are born of thee? Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set; You, who made man mighty, make him mightier yet, You, who made man mighty, make him mightier yet!

It's only a matter of time before SpaceX sends its own astronauts on a shakedown orbital trip. Another first.

Also it would not surprise me if a few years after that, SpaceX made an unannounced detour on one mission and repeated the Apollo 8 trip around the moon. I can think of no better way to promote the company. Do they have an upper stage capable of a TLI?

Oh it won't be a "surprise." Most of the Saturn V was fuel to get to Lunar orbit and back. The difference between LEO and Geosynchronous is three orders of magnitude (if I'm remembering the distances right, 200-300 miles for LEO, 25,000+ for Geosynchronous.) The moon is another order of magnitude more (100,000+ miles.) That's just going to the room down the hall compared to what a Martian or Venusian mission would be.

Once your vehicle attains escape velocity, it only has to point itself in the right direction and then shut off its engines. You can coast the rest of the way, and then you shouldn't have to burn any more fuel unless you need to adjust your trajectory. After approaching your destination, you can burn some more fuel to slow down and insert into orbit around your target (Mars or the Moon), and then you only need enough fuel to get out of orbit and return home. Burn one more time to enter the atmosphere and you're done. Most of your fuel is needed just to climb out of the gravity well and send your crew on their way. This is why the Apollo command modules and lunar modules were so much smaller than the Saturn V booster that launched them.

Oh it won't be a "surprise." Most of the Saturn V was fuel to get to Lunar orbit and back. The difference between LEO and Geosynchronous is three orders of magnitude (if I'm remembering the distances right, 200-300 miles for LEO, 25,000+ for Geosynchronous.) The moon is another order of magnitude more (100,000+ miles.) That's just going to the room down the hall compared to what a Martian or Venusian mission would be.

Most of the Saturn V fuel by a HUGE margin was to get to LEO. The difference in miles is highly misleading and mostly irrelevant. The difference in required delta-v -- the amount you need to accelerate your cargo, ergo the amount of energy you need -- is much more relevant. As you can see here GEO is only 40% higher than LEO, and the Lunar orbit is only 50% higher than LEO.

So the amount of extra acceleration needed is small -- and by the time you get to that point, you've already discharged most of your mass.

This is why we needed an enormous rocket to get to the Moon, and only a tiny module with a small amount of fuel to get back.

That said, SpaceX isn't going to go to the moon on a lark without announcement.

The media coverage around SpaceX is pretty fascinating. There are dozens of other rocket motor companies out there delivering commerical and government payloads frequently at low cost commercial prices. SpaceX shows up, buys up a lot of old rocket engineers from these companies, builds their own motors, and suddenly they're the only thing in space.

Can someone explain why they get so much coverage?

Show me an example of even one of these 'dozens of other rocket motor companies out there delivering commerical and government payloads' that comes somewhere close to the prices SpaceX is charging. There actually aren't any. Also, the number of active commercially available rockets to launch payloads of the size that SpaceX can with the Falcon 9 is relatively small. The price point and payload size of the upcoming Falcon Heavy, (assuming it works properly, which remains to be seen) will go well beyond the already groundbreaking price territory that they have achieved with the Falcon 9, and will bring commercially available payload sizes that the world has never seen.

And this is to say nothing of the work on Grasshopper.

"...buys up a lot of old rocket engineers from these companies.."

Actually, if you looked into it, I think you'd find that one of the criticisms often lobbied at SpaceX is that they have too many young people who "didn't know what they didn't know yet" and who would eventually crash into the hard realities that all the greybeards outside SpaceX knew to be true.

They get press because they won't accept business as usual and are aggressively trying to change the dynamics of the market. It is certainly subject to debate whether they will ultimately be successful, but it almost takes a willful sort of ignorance to deny they are doing something different and making the sort of waves that justify a lot of press.

[deletia]Most of the Saturn V fuel by a HUGE margin was to get to LEO.[deletia]

5/6 (actually 5/6.2) was to get the Saturn V to 42 miles up and more importantly 2,300 m/s. Wiki lists the Earth's escape velocity at ~11,200 m/s. So 5/6ths of the rocket gets you 20% of the velocity or 4% of the total energy needed*.

See today's xkcd:whatif (whatif 0038: Voyager) for more detailed discussion of the issue of using chemical rockets.

I remember a EE trade magazine around 2000 mentioning that a geosynchronous satellite failed to get into the right position. The company then bought the thing from the insurance company and then plotted a course that looped around the moon to inject it in the right place. Way-out-there to the moon isn't a big deal, but they call it Low-Earth-Orbit for a reason, and much of it means you are still mostly down the gravity well.

* is this seriously right? I mean I just took the ratio of the squares of the velocity, so I suspect my getting numbers from various wikis. I know the first stage barely does anything, but 20% looks right (even for 80% of the rocket) and not 4%.

I would say that they are fairly well up on the technology. I will grant you that they haven't taken any cash on the launches they haven't made yet but it looks like they are doing very well for a bunch of "youngsters"!

Actually, if you looked into it, I think you'd find that one of the criticisms often lobbied at SpaceX is that they have too many young people who "didn't know what they didn't know yet" and who would eventually crash into the hard realities that all the greybeards outside SpaceX knew to be true.

Aren't they 3 for 3 (I am assuming the first was a non-cargo load) in ISS docking missions? I might not be ready to strap myself into a SpaceX rocket, but I think their budget is sufficiently shoe-string that that they have supplied as much cargo as the "greybeard's" systems would for the same cost even if none of the next 10 missions bring any cargo to the ISS.

The media coverage around SpaceX is pretty fascinating. There are dozens of other rocket motor companies out there delivering commerical and government payloads frequently at low cost commercial prices. SpaceX shows up, buys up a lot of old rocket engineers from these companies, builds their own motors, and suddenly they're the only thing in space.

Can someone explain why they get so much coverage?

You are confused because most of your information is grossly incorrect.